the principles that have been developed.
In this chapter we focus on a particular and very important principle of organic systems. This is the fact that to maintain homeostasis - a reasonable equilibrium - there evolve pairs of systems which act in opposite directions to maintain any important parameter within range. If one increases, then the other decreases. This is coupled to the principle that if we attempt to over-ride a system it will tend, over a few cycles, to strengthen. We may then often find that the most effective strategy in dealing with a problem is analogous to vaccination: we act in the short term to produce the very thing which we are trying to prevent in the long term, with the aim of strengthening a natural system which will produce the required change. The converse of this is that a direct attempt to change a system is more analogous to drug
therapy: it can be very effective in the short term, but in the long term weakens a natural system which would do the same job, thus creating potential long-term problems.
THERE IS an old saying: "What goes up must come down."
Originally, I suppose, this was applied to anything thrown into the air. But here we want to focus
attention on the fact that for any biological system any increase in activity cannot go on for ever: in time the activity level must come down.
This idea provides a starting point for our examination of the reason why, in Hypnotherapy, if we want to decrease the activity of a system, we may often succeed by first increasing it.
Here are some examples of the use of such a principle. It is not uncommon for someone to say, "I cannot relax. The more I try, the worse I become." The problem here is that the muscles are designed actively to contract when they receive a nervous impulse: /{nervous input} > /{muscle activity}. But there is no way
in which a direct nervous stimulus can reduce activity. Those people who can relax have learned the knack of stopping sending any messages to the muscles (via the efferent nerves), often by concentrating instead on messages coming from the body (via the afferent nerves).
People who are trying to relax, but can't, are acting as if the way to relax is to find the right way of ordering the muscles to relax. But this does not work. With such people it is particularly useful to get them to start by tensing all the large body muscles as much as possible. We might suggest raising the legs, holding the arms forward with tensed fists, tensing the abdomen, etc. They are then instructed to hold this for as long as possible. This greatly enhanced activity of the muscles soon uses up most of the available energy in the bloodstream which, combined with a build-up of lactic acid in the muscles, soon produces the familiar tiredness and ache.
When this tension is relaxed the muscles are then naturally in no condition to be activated by any nervous impulses, and so relax into a state of very low activity.
In shorthand we have:
/{muscles} > /{sense of fatigue} > \{muscles}
I have known men who have got into a terrible state because they have been told by someone that they ought to relax more: they have then reduced the amount of sport they have been playing in an attempt to do so. This has only led to hours of increasing tension. When they are instead instructed to play sport again they find the natural consequence: they relax after the game completely and naturally.
We see in these examples the principle that in dealing with some organic systems the best approach to making a change in one direction is to start a change in the opposite direction.
As another example of this principle, there is a case of Erickson's in which he dealt with a grossly
overweight woman by first forcing her to put on more weight (Rossi (1980) vol. IV, pp 182-185Bib). The practical effect of this was that she subsequently lost weight quickly and easily.
A possible mechanism for this can be analysed as follows. There is some system in the body which is responsible for storing fat: let us call this {storing}. There is another system which deals with removing stored fat (remember the general principle that we expect two different systems which operate in
opposite directions): let us call this {removing}. In line with our general principles of diagnosis we would like to know what leads to an activation of {storing}.
If we place the mechanism in the environment in which it evolved, which was one in which there were very few means of storing food safely for long periods, and one in which there might be years of plenty and then years of famine, the following dynamics would seem natural. Any sense of there being a shortage of food would activate {storage} in the same way that today any news that there might be a shortage of sugar on the supermarket shelves leads to housewives descending like locusts and packing
their larders with it. In the case of a sensed impending famine the early woman would simply find herself eating every scrap available and turning it into fat.
We therefore have the simple process:
/{sense of shortage} > /{storing}.
Note that although this is a plausible formula I am by no means saying that it MUST hold for everyone.
If there is one certain thing that can be said about people it is that they work in different ways. What I DO say is that the question of whether or not the formula holds for a particular person is one which can be determined empirically. If an artificial sense of famine such as is produced by a strict diet leads to an activation of a pattern of compulsive eating and then rapid weight gain we have a strong reason to suppose that the initially plausible result above holds.
With this idea in mind we may see Erickson's strategy as being one of inactivating completely this particular coupling by presenting the woman's body with a world in which there is not only a surfeit of food but one in which it is being forced into her. With this {storing} system inactivated it would then be easy to lose weight.
Incidentally the same method of placing this storage mechanism in the environment in which it evolved would suggest that it is rather more likely to happen in women, who have to carry food within their bodies for both themselves and a helpless baby, than for men, who would more helpfully respond to famine by working harder to glean food by hunting or going further afield - activities not generally helped by being heavier.
Here is another thought on the same lines. What made a woman look attractive a few million years ago? I suggest that it was being well-fed and plump: this would indicate health and being able to mother healthy children. (This remains true, I believe, in parts of the world where food is at a premium.) Therefore if a woman felt unattractive then we might well suppose that the primitive mechanism of attempting to pad herself out would be activated:
/{sense of unattractiveness} > /{weight}
A modern woman who has inherited this mechanism is therefore in a terrible position because, thanks to modern ideas, she thinks that weight is unattractive. We therefore have:
/{weight} > /{sense of unattractiveness},
which, coupled with the above primitive mechanism makes, of course, an increasing positive feedback loop for weight and unattractiveness - a loop which is a familiar one to millions of women.
If such a woman attempts to lose weight by dieting, but has also inherited the old storage pattern, then
she only succeeds in activating a very strong instinctive desire to binge and grow fat. This is a serious feedback loop:
/{weight} > /{diet} > /{sense of famine} > /{storage} > /{weight},
which underlies the principle, "Dieting makes you Fat" (Carnon & Einzig (1983)Bib). Since an increase in weight will sooner or later trigger another attempt at dieting, there is an increasing positive feedback loop.
For such people Hypnotherapy has to act to eliminate the increasing loops by deftly altering key factors.
For example, a strong emphasis on enhancing the feeling of attractiveness will tend to weaken or incapacitate the loop involving it and weight. Erickson's over-eating strategy would work for many women, but it takes a lot of effort to get most women to accept this approach! But at the least we may note that it is an important part of any healthy eating pattern that there should not be any prolonged sense of being deprived of food.
This book does not provide a detailed account of dealing with such problems. In general there is no one way for every woman. As in the general principles of Hypnotherapy outlined in Part B, the best results are obtained by a careful analysis of how things work in each individual; the systems, internal and
external, that are involved; and finally a proper handling of the various possible strategies for change and their outcome.
After the above examples and discussions, which give insight into how when we are dealing with dynamic systems the "obvious" change can be in exactly the wrong direction, we can come to a more general perspective on the strategy of creating change by pushing in the opposite direction.
We start with the general principle that, in order to maintain homeostasis, organic systems evolve pairs of subsystems which operate in contrary directions. (In many cases there are several systems which operate in each direction, but for simplicity we will consider two.) Let us just call a particular pair of systems which regulate some factor X, {up} and {down}. They might be systems for increasing and decreasing salt in the bloodstream, for raising and lowering an arm, for increasing or decreasing weight, for
increasing or decreasing adrenaline production, etc. Remember that the systems {up} and {down} will generally have evolved millions if not billions of years ago in quite a different environment and in beings with little conscious control.
We then have the basic formulae: /X > /{down} and \X > /{up}.
The third factor that we are going to take into account is the attempt consciously to control the system regulated by these twin mechanisms.
Now suppose that consciousness is always striving to alter X in one direction. Without loss of generality we may suppose that it is trying to move it down:
/{consciousness} > \X.
Inevitably this will bring it into conflict with {up}, which exists to safeguard the organism against values of X which are too low, and this in turn acts to increase X:
\X > /{up} > /X.
But this increase, of course, completes an increasing loop for X. The increase will be consciously noticed and the process repeated again, and again:
/X > /{consciousness} > \X > /{up}> /X.
Since it is a general principle of organic systems that the more often they are activated the stronger they become - think of muscles or of immunity to disease - the main effect of the above loop over a number of cycles is that {up} becomes stronger.
Meanwhile {down} can take it easy. It is never needed: {consciousness} has taken over its role. It is inactive. It may even start to atrophy.
One great virtue of getting the conscious mind to act in the opposite direction, and to force the value of X up for a while, is that it will then activate the lazy {down} system! Erickson's eating strategy did just this.
One of the big problems with people who suffer from panic attacks is that although there are natural systems which will prevent the associated symptoms from getting out of hand, they are often used so infrequently - the sufferer naturally tries to avoid panics at all costs - that they become weakened and less effective than they should be. A strategy of getting a Client to go out and "collect" mini-panics would be an example of a way of increasing the strength of the "down" system.
In our initial example on relaxation we activated a natural system which switches down muscular activity by first forcing up the activity until the {down} system - the system designed to protect against overwork - was activated.
Many problems which are brought to the Hypnotherapist are a result of one-sided efforts at
control. And time and time again they have been helped by an approach which encourages the Client to spend some time activating the opposite mechanisms.
There are millions who have tried very, very hard to sleep, but have never tried to stay awake. Forcing oneself to stay awake and active is a good way of activating the natural mechanisms which reduce arousal and bring on sleep. There are men who have trouble urinating in public. They have pushed and pushed to no avail in an attempt to start but they have never practised stopping. When they do practise they are acting against the release system, which therefore gets a chance to grow stronger. There are
those who are very embarrassed by blushing. They try very hard to reduce it, but it only makes things worse. By actively trying to increase it, they tend to activate more often the systems which tend naturally to limit it: systems which can then operate more often and more easily.
Of course in all real cases the situation is quite complex and the suggestion to reverse the direction of conscious control has other definite useful effects in breaking psychological vicious circles as well.
However there remains an important principle of organic systems, which is that putting pressure on them will, if they do not collapse completely, make them stronger.
We have eliminated smallpox from the world. But most other infectious organisms are getting more and more immune to our best antibiotics: because medicine is always acting to reduce their activity, the long-term effect is to make them stronger.
In society it is so very often the case that attempts to oppress or suppress some section of society leads only to that section becoming stronger in the long run. There are exceptions, as with the diseases, but so many people fail to understand that directly attacking an organic system (without killing it) is most likely to make it stronger in the long run.
Anything that does not kill you outright makes you a little stronger.
- Piet Hein
The introduction of myxomatosis was very successful in reducing rabbit populations when first
introduced. But now rabbits have become more immune and have developed different instincts so that they no longer return to the warren to die, which used to increase the chance of the other rabbits
becoming infected. This disease is therefore no longer effective in controlling rabbits, and the populations are expanding again.
We may note in this context that one potential problem with many medical interventions is that they are always acting in a one-sided way. They act as adjuncts to the conscious mind's control. The effect will be to weaken whatever system there is in the body to produce the same effect as the drug. Injections of insulin, for example, will tend to decrease the body's own production of insulin. Consequently there must develop a greater and greater degree of dependence on the drug. This is not to say that in many cases the medical intervention is not the best thing to do - particularly in the short term. But it is to say that some practitioners should become more aware of the dynamic nature of the systems they are working with. If, for example, a tranquilliser of any kind is used artificially to reduce anxiety - and this can include
nicotine - then inevitably it reduces the demands on the body's own systems which operate to reduce anxiety. These tend therefore to become less active and weaker. Consequently if the artificial
tranquilliser is removed there is very little to stop the symptoms rising to high levels. The effect is generally to make the sufferer return again to the artificial help.
As a population, our muscles are much weaker than those of our grandfathers, because we use artificial legs so much: cars. Our natural legs have so much less exercise that they have naturally become weaker.
In general we see that if the function of a system is "assisted" by some other mechanism then there is a definite possibility that that system will weaken. Equally paradoxically, organic systems are often made stronger by being resisted, not assisted. Pruning may strengthen a rose.
The whole principle of vaccination rests on this basis. The vaccination does not directly help to kill off an infection. What it does is to activate and therefore strengthen the body's own immune system by
"fighting" it. The vaccination is a mild attack on the body's health. The immune system reacts by growing more effective, and then remains so, often for life.
Notice that in this way it is the complete opposite to drug therapy. Vaccination, by attacking, strengthens a natural system. Drug therapy, by assisting, will tend to weaken a natural system.
But of course there are times, such as when a system has been naturally weakened, and needs a chance to recover, when temporary assistance is the correct treatment.
How do we decide which approach is the better? It is to be hoped that a careful systematic analysis combined with a sympathetic understanding of the Client will enable the right decision to be made. But the mere fact that the two possibilities are in mind should make us aware of the options, so that if the one approach is not going according to plan, then we are well advised to examine the alternative.
It is to be hoped that the need systematically to analyse the dynamics of a situation, as has been done in Part B, will also lead to an automatic awareness of opposing pairs of systems which exist. Recall that we start by asking /S > ?, which should reveal among any systems that are activated by an increase in S any which act to limit it. These will be {down} systems. But we also ask the question \S > ?, which is to say that we ask what will be the consequence of a reduction in the symptom that is seen as a problem. This should reveal to us any {up} system that becomes active to prevent it changing downwards.
What this chapter adds is the habit of automatically looking for paired systems, which act in opposite directions to maintain the homeostasis which is so essential for the survival of an organism.
It also adds the simple but important idea that a change can as often be achieved by starting a change in
It also adds the simple but important idea that a change can as often be achieved by starting a change in